Chapter 4 Coordination – Not yet reviewed by RWMG
CHAPTER 4 COORDINATION
This chapter focusses on both describing the coordination activities that occurred during the Plan Update
process and on assuring that this high level of coordination and collaboration continues into the future.
Coordination within the region, with adjacent IRWM regions, and between the RWMG and individual
entities with Federal and state agencies are described in this section. Agency coordination includes
consideration of both project development and regulatory compliance.
4.1 Coordination – Local Agencies and Stakeholders
By June of 2013, a total of 81 stakeholders had been identified and contacted. These groups or entities
included: 41 agencies, jurisdictions or departments; 12 non-governmental organizations; 18 Tribal entities;
four Hispanic community groups; and, three Hmong community groups. Chapter 2 – Stakeholder
Involvement, includes a complete list of all entities that were recruited to participate in the Plan Update
process, as well as the ultimate level of involvement of each contacted group.
As part of the circuit-riding activities described in Chapter 2 – Stakeholder Involvement, local issues
identified as precipitating project development were identified by all contacted agencies and/or
entities/organizations. This issues list not only informed the development of the IRWMP issues section,
Chapter 10, but also was provided to all agencies and stakeholders to ensure that the genesis of each
project was fully understood from the earliest stages. The project development process described in
Chapter 15 – Project Application, Development and Review, was designed specifically to ensure
coordination between local agencies and stakeholders during project development.
Each subsequent round of project development resulted in draft project materials being both posted on the
web and emailed directly to the full agency/stakeholder distribution list. During the review of project
materials, conflicts, linkages and synergies between individual projects were identified. If possible projectrelated conflicts were identified then either individual agencies/stakeholders collaborated directly to
address potential conflicts, or members of the project team were requested to facilitate discussion. As a
result of this purposeful and intensive effort, the final set of Plan projects were voted into the Plan
unanimously with no dissenting opinion. The project integration process further served to identify potential
synergies and efficiencies both within and between identified projects. In several cases project descriptions
or components were modified or refined to accommodate discussions and collaboration that resulted from
this integration process.
4.2 Adjacent IRWM Coordination Efforts
4.2.1 Identification of Adjacent IRWM Efforts
Using the official DWR IRWM funding area and IRWM region area maps, the IRWM regions which share a
boundary with Yuba County were identified as: American River Basin, North Sacramento Valley Four County
Yuba IRWMP | UPDATE 2013
4-1
Chapter 4 Coordination
Group, Upper Feather River Watershed, and Cosumnes American Bear Yuba/CABY. All of these IRWMP
regions are within the Sacramento River Funding Area.
4.2.1 Accomplishing Coordination with Adjacent IRWM Efforts
The RWMG decided to limit coordination with adjacent areas to informal contacts until such time as the
group had finalized the issues list. Prepared goals and objectives, completed development of the list of
projects, and completed the project review based on the criteria “a-l” as stipulated by the guidelines. In this
way, the outreach would be based on known factors and the discussions could be based on concrete
findings rather than speculation.
4.2.2 Accomplishing Coordination with Adjacent IRWM Efforts
At the RWMG meeting in April 2014, three stakeholders volunteered to outreach to the adjacent IRWM
regions, including: CABY, Upper Feather, North Sacramento Valley, and American River Basin (ARB). Scott
Matyac of YCWA contacted the North Sac Valley and ARB, Jim Brobeck of AquAlliance contacted North Sac
Valley, and Rachel Hutchinson of SYRCL approached CABY and the Upper Feather.
All of the initial outreach activities were conducted by phone. Ongoing coordination with adjacent IRWM
regions will continue using the same contact people with, at minimum, an annual phone call to ensure interregional communication.
Additionally, it is important to note that informal coordination has occurred in a variety of ways, since the
initiation of the Plan Update in early 2013: (1) attendance and conversations at the Sierra Water Work
Group conference in Lake Tahoe by RWMG members and consulting team members (2013 and 2014); (2)
attendance and conversations at the Association of California Water Agencies/ACWA conferences, special
topic summits and regional forums (Region 2 to which Yuba belongs as well as immediately adjacent
Regions 3 and 4) by RWMG members (2013, 2014); and, (3) attendance at DWR-sponsored strategic
planning workshops in Sacramento and Redding by RWMG members and consulting team members (April
and November 2013).
4.2.3 Outcomes of Coordination with Adjacent IRWM Efforts
There were no actual inter-regional conflicts that were identified during the outreach conversations or
during the many informal meetings between RWMG members and stakeholders in other regions. Instead
the conversations focused on opportunities to collaborate in project development or addressing issues of
mutual concern, such as:





4-2
Equity of funding between IRWM regions within the same funding area
Discussion of conjunctive use and water banking between regions, as well as issues associated with
ground water management
Opportunities to coordinate flood control responses and projects
Watershed management (e.g. forests/fuels/fire, climate change adaptability, riparian and fishery
habitat)
Fisheries (particularly anadromous)
Yuba County IRWMP | UPDATE 2013
Chapter 4 Coordination – Not yet reviewed by RWMG
In all cases, the next steps included a set of actions that would support long-term collaboration: attendance
at meetings of adjacent RWMGs, formal (via RWMG meetings) and informal (such as opportunistic use of
attendance at events) conversations to identify projects that could be multi-IRWM regional (within the
Sacramento Region Funding Area), ongoing participation in the Round Table of Regions group, and
forwarding of project lists and updates to adjacent regions to spark discussions about collaborative project
design or coordination.
4.3 Coordination with State and/or Federal Agencies
A variety of state and federal agencies were identified as being integral to ongoing IRWM activities. In some
cases, these agencies maintain regulatory responsibility for potential project implementation. In other
cases, these agencies have plans or policies which will impact achieving Plan goals and objectives. A list of
relevant state and federal agencies follows:
4.3.1 State Water Resources Control Board
Meetings were held in May and August of 2013, with the California State Water Resources Control Board
coordinator for the region to identify options for coordination during the Plan Update. At the initial meeting
the following issues/options were discussed:
1. CV-SALTS: These are regionally-based processes looking at limits to the salts entering Central Valley
waterways. If a recycled water project were to go forward through the IRWMP, it would be
expected that a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) would be developed in coordination
with the CV-SALTS program.
2. Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program: The California Rice Coalition does monitoring in compliance
with this program; outcomes/data might be integrated into the IRWM process.
3. TMDLs: There are 9 water bodies in the Yuba Region on the 2010 list; these should be integrated
into the plan with possible actions identified, or at least the timeline discussed.
4. Dairy Program: There are four dairies in the region; this may be important to discuss depending on
the size and relative effects of the dairies.
5. NPDES Program: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulates outflow from
WWTPs, among other sources. Identifying the permits in the region would be helpful in knowing
pollutant sources.
6. MS-4 Stormwater Program: This program is part of the NPDES Program, and focuses on topics like
minimizing/eliminating discharge in times of high flow. This would include low-impact
development/design (LID).
7. Septic Program: Septic systems can be a problem in concentrated areas or when they’re too close to
water supply sources/systems (including wells). Nevada County has identified this as an issue, as
has Yuba County planning department.
The second meeting in August was a follow-up to the initial outreach meeting on May 3, 2013. The purpose
of the meeting was to increase coordination and review the CV-Salts program in more detail. The Board
Executive Officer has given specific direction to staff to ensure that water quality is consistently and
persistently referenced throughout IRWM planning; this includes the CV-SALTS program, as well as the
TMDL and 303(d) work done by the Board.
Yuba IRWMP | UPDATE 2013
4-1
Chapter 4 Coordination
The Regional Board contact for the Yuba Region IRWM process indicated that she would participate
regularly to ensure that water quality is a consideration for all applicable issues. In addition, a staffer
working with CV Salts including the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the valley attended the
meeting.
Staff described the CV-SALTS program as a regionally-based program that aims to limit the salts entering
Central Valley waterways. It was initiated in 2006 as a result of impaired water in the Central Valley. Certain
IRWMP projects, namely those entailing recycled water, may be required to have a Salt and Nutrient
Management Plan (SNMP) which would be developed in coordination with the CV-SALTS program.
KEY POINTS





There is currently no Salt and Nutrient Mgt Plan for Yuba County.
The Central Valley Salinity Coalition spearheaded the CV Salts program to address the issue.
The Coalition has a tiered strategy and Work Plan which provides the overall framework with
management plans for specific areas.
All recycled water projects must be approved by letter from CV Salts program.
The initial conceptual report will include maps that will determine whether Yuba County is a high
priority area.
NOTED
 Kings County, Sonoma, Pajaro , and Mojave IRWMPs addressed CV Salts in their IRWMP
 Consider adding a table to the Plan that lists the type of agriculture (if relevant) and type of Plan
needed.
 The document library should include Resolution No 5-2010-0024 which requires preparation of
Salinity and Nutrient Management Plan and the State Recycled Water Policy should be referenced
as well.
 The CV Salinity Coalition membership brochure directly addresses the connection to IRWM
planning—Here is some relevant text taken from their brochure-- Groups preparing Integrated
Regional Water Management plans involving Central Valley Waters will be required to manage
salinity and document their efforts. The best opportunities to manage salinity exist at the regional
scale so coordination is essential. In the Central Valley, coordination with other stakeholders and the
Regional Board is best achieved through CVSC. IRWM groups therefore need to join the Coalition.
Cities or districts that are planning or implementing a recycled water project or any project that
may increase salts or nitrates in the Central Valley need to be a Coalition Member and active
participation in CV‐SALTS. Irrigated Lands Coalitions operating under Regional Board waivers of
waste discharge requirements also need to join the coalition. Any facility that is a WDR or NPDES
permit holder that has or could have salinity or nitrogen restrictions in their permit(s) needs to join
the coalition.
The results of these meetings were conveyed to the RWMG and ongoing discussions informed both the
regional description as well as the issues identification chapter. Ongoing participation in the CV-Salts effort
is included in Plan implementation actions identified in Chapter 18 – Plan and Project Performance.
4-2
Yuba County IRWMP | UPDATE 2013
Chapter 4 Coordination – Not yet reviewed by RWMG
4.2.2 US Forest Service
Coordination with the US Forest Service was accomplished via staff attendance at the RWMG meetings,
USFS staff review of documents and ongoing meetings between USFS staff and a variety of IRWM members
in other venues and on projects which there is exiting collaboration. [Note: text will be added in
consultation with Carol Purchase].
4.2.3 Feather River Region – Regional Flood Management Plan
As stated in the May 2014 Draft Regional Flood Management Plan:
“The Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA), Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority (TRLIA),
Marysville Levee Commission (MLC), and Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) have
partnered with the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to develop this
Feather River Regional Flood Management Plan (“RFMP” or “Plan”). This Plan reflects the
flood management priorities of the Feather River Region while at the same time aligning with
the recently adopted 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) to the extent feasible.
By clearly establishing regional flood management priorities, this Plan will facilitate future
funding and implementation of much-needed flood risk reduction projects.
Although funded by DWR, the intent of all five partnering agencies (YCWA, TRLIA, MLC, SBFCA,
and DWR) is to facilitate the development of a broadly supported Plan and embrace the
FloodSAFE vision….
The regional goals and objectives are to improve flood risk management in the region while
advancing the supporting goals of improving operations and maintenance, promoting
ecosystem functions, improving institutional support, and promoting multiobjective projects.
These objectives of the regional planning process are founded on, and consistent with, the
goals of the CVFPP as described in the 2012 Plan.”
The Yuba County Water Agency served as a liaisons with the larger four-agency effort. In addition, TRLIA
participated in several of the project development activities to ensure that their projects were afforded
consideration and also informed the development of other projects.
4.2.4 Levee Improvement Projects
Yuba County and RD 784 work together as the TRLIA to address levee improvement projects on
the Feather and Bear Rivers. TRLIA has worked closely for several years with the California
Reclamation Board (part of DWR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to address the
flood protection needs of RD 784. This work resulted in projects that include the planning,
design, and construction of setback levees on the Bear and Feather Rivers.
Yuba IRWMP | UPDATE 2013
4-1
Chapter 4 Coordination
4.2.5 Forecast-Coordinated Operations of Lake Oroville and New
Bullards Bar Reservoir (F-CO)
The F-CO is a multi-agency regional flood management program to improve flood operations
along the Yuba and Feather Rivers and downstream. The F-CO is a partnership program that
includes the following:




U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Yuba County Water Agency
Department of Water Resources
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National
Weather Service-River Forecast Center
The F-CO is a multi-year project that includes F-CO Design (Phase 1) and Implementation
(Phase 2). Half of Phase 1 is funded with in-kind services from DWR, NOAA, and the Corps,
with the remaining half funded by the Costa- Machado Water Act of 2000. Phase 2 (estimated
cost of about $1.6 million) is funded with 30 percent provided by YCWA and 70 percent by
grant funds. In addition, in-kind services from DWR, NOAA, the Corps, and the SWP will
supplement program implementation.
4.2.6 Lower Yuba River Accord
The Lower Yuba River Accord, described in more detail in Chapter 7 – Region Description, was
formulated by a broad coalition of 17 agricultural, environmental, and fisheries interests
including state and federal agencies and YCWA.
The Lower Yuba River Accord (Yuba Accord) enables the Yuba County Water Agency to successfully
operate the Yuba River Development Project (FERC 2246, 362 MW) for hydropower, irrigation,
flood control, recreation and fisheries benefits. As a settlement agreement, the Yuba Accord is the
final product of nearly three years of intense negotiations among 17 stakeholders, including local
irrigation districts, state and federal resource agencies, and conservation groups. Based upon the
success of two one-year pilot programs (2006/2007), the State of California approved the
agreement in 2008, and it is now fully operational. The Yuba Accord is unprecedented in that it
combines increased instream fisheries flows – for wild, native salmon and steelhead – with
increased supplemental water supplies for California cities and farms, while preserving all of the
project’s clean, renewable hydropower generation capacity. The Yuba Accord also reaffirms the
water rights of the Yuba County Water Agency and its member irrigation districts. The Yuba Accord
represents a nexus of smart engineering, collaborative partnership and strategy development in
the pursuit of a sustainable solution to a complex controversy.
4-2
Yuba County IRWMP | UPDATE 2013
Chapter 4 Coordination – Not yet reviewed by RWMG
The Accord stipulates creation of a Resource Management Team (RMT). The RMT is composed of
a Planning and Operations group tasked with implementing a detailed monitoring and evaluation
study program for the Lower Yuba River as specified in the Lower Yuba River Accord. The RMT
membership is limited to signatories of the Yuba Accord, including the Yuba County Water Agency
(YCWA), California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL), The Bay Institute (TBI),
Friends of the River (FOR), Trout Unlimited (TU), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and the Department
of Water Resources (DWR).
The IRWMP Update consulting team attended the 2013 and 2014 Symposium to inform the
agencies present of the status of the Yuba County IRWMP and to ensure coordination between
the Lower Yuba River Accord RMT and the Yuba County IRWMP. In addition – several of the RMT
members are Yuba IRWM stakeholders and participated closely ion issue identification,
development of Plan goals and objectives and ongoing conversations to inform project
development.
Participants and stakeholders in the process include:










American Rivers
Bear Yuba Land Trust
CBEC Consultants
Foothills Water Network
Gold Country Flyfishers
HDR Consultants
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pacific Gas and Electric
Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission
Yuba IRWMP | UPDATE 2013










South Yuba River Citizens League
State Water Resources Control Board
Teichert Aggregates
The Bay Institute
Trout Unlimited
University of California Davis
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Forest Service, Tahoe National
Forest
US Fish and Wildlife Service-AFRP
Yuba County Water Agency
4-1
Chapter 2 Coordination
4.2.7 Groundwater Management and Monitoring
YCWA has prepared and adopted an SB 1938-compliant Groundwater Management Plan (GMP).
This GMP was prepared by YCWA in cooperation with the local groundwater users and DWR.
The agency continues to work and collaborate with DWR staff and with Member Units to
implement an enhanced groundwater monitoring program.
Yuba IRWMP | UPDATE 2013
1-5